I think your story was pointless though. your articles were good, you didn't need a silly made-up overblown story to ruin your argument.

You sounded angry at me.

In hindsight my articles weren't that good because he's a Catholic and thus putting forward neanderthals wasn't a good move because Humans (supposedly) came first, and no other before them.

In any case, I have discovered the beauty that is National Geographic news.

It wasn't because of the catholic thing, way back (37 years ago) when I was an undergrad I was a history major and still am a history nut. Nor is it that I believe that humans came first, note catholics believe in evolution, the church supports it and we know that archeological record shows neanderthals coming into the scene at least 200,000 years before modern humans. What I was saying was that it wasn't the best examples to bring up because all of those lifestyles (except with the amerindians/native americans/indians/whateverthefuckisthetrendy namelatey) of north america died out looong before the writing of the bible. Neaderthals were gone by 30,000 BC and hunter gatherer societies were put on the extinction notice in 7000 BC with the agricultural revolution and by the time of the writing of the bible (the pentateuch (first five books) was written and compiled during the bablyionian captivity around 500-400 BC and the history books were written from 900BC to 100BC with some additions, like when the tribe of benjamin refused to support David's coup d'etat against saul, it was retroactively added into the bible that they had broken the guest right and thus the other tribes massacred them so that he could have political justification for his acts.

Thus, the examples really did not work because the lifestyle that you presented as showing women being capable of creating capital (food and wealth) was for the most part dead by the time of the writing of the bible and it was replaced by heavily male centered economic systems like the strength intensive farming with its assumption of organized politics and armies or the fighting intensive shepherding culture with all of its attached raiding, also male centered. Women were crucial in these societies, but as a support network, making the children to replace losses as well as supporting the large households necessary to make these systems possible. However, this is where my wording was poor, they were less "useful" in that they could not create capital. Thus, women at home and men in the field dominates the biblical books written during this time because simply it fit the economic model. Note, this is also why I touched on the whole forced marriage because of rape/one night stand (which is more common in the bible than forced rape). A woman who had a child but no husband was screwed, on her own she probably could not make enough food to feed herself and her child, which is why the forced marriage was there to ensure there was at least one man there to provide food. Otherwise she would either a- be another mouth to feed in an area where food was already scarce, note the constant mentions of famine and the like or b- if she did not have a clan, be alone to die of starvation.

Notice that all of this changes during the new testament, which was written during the first boom of cities and the real rise of large scale agriculture and trade during the pax romana, which meant women suddenly were in a position of greater political power and could also create capital.

also, national geographic is freaking awesome, though it was better before. I inherited my grandparents old collection and have been adding to it and its really cool to read it from 100 years ago to see when the national geographic society was discovering new areas and worlds all the time._________________Marriage begins with a man on his knees giving a woman jewelry and asking for permission to do something. Pretty much sets the tone for the next 40 years.

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it. I'm not worried cause I have Faith. If we can stop it, all well in good, if we can't? My belief in God tells me that He has the final say in when the universe ends

Just to be nitpicky, even if global warming killed every human being on Earth, it wouldn't destroy even the Earth itself, let alone the universe. I think it's important to keep things like that in perspective.

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it. I'm not worried cause I have Faith. If we can stop it, all well in good, if we can't? My belief in God tells me that He has the final say in when the universe ends

Just to be nitpicky, even if global warming killed every human being on Earth, it wouldn't destroy even the Earth itself, let alone the universe. I think it's important to keep things like that in perspective.

this is true and I don't think the good Lord would be too happy if we wrecked this quite nice world in the unfashionable east side of the milky way galaxy. That being said, global warming is definitely real, man made or not that's the question. And that is where the can of worms comes in. To avoid going into too much detail, strong enviromentalist, but as a historian a bit of a skeptic when it comes to it being man made or not. 1- we have barely reached the temperatures set during the medieval warm period, a 150 year period in the 1100's when the planet really heated up and places like greenland were a lot hotter than they are now. 2- 12,000 years ago we were leaving and ice age, its foolish to think that without the precious human race tempratures would not be changing. What really irritates me though is how much damage the obssession with global warming has done to environmentalism. Countries before would concentrate on cleaning up their soil, now its "carbon credits" and they don't do anything concrete. Not to mention the often scummy way that scientists have hushed up data have really done a lot of damage to what was once a premier field. So that's my two cents on that._________________Marriage begins with a man on his knees giving a woman jewelry and asking for permission to do something. Pretty much sets the tone for the next 40 years.

The comic made it seem like he was at lest acting like he COULD enter, but did not want to. I do think it's clear that he could not use any of his powers in there.

Yes, looking at that strip again, I think it could be that (1) he could not use his powers in there, (2) he could not use his powers to give people fantasies in there (since that was what he was doing, and it is the reality zone and all) or, (3) perhaps more thought-provoking, that his actual true unvarnished self might be revealed there... (But would this version of the Devil be more like a pitiful Walter Mitty type deep down--or something more like Screwtape or Cthulhu?)

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it. I'm not worried cause I have Faith. If we can stop it, all well in good, if we can't? My belief in God tells me that He has the final say in when the universe ends, and he's the one in charge of the universe, he's going to create a new heaven and earth after everything's done, so even if we can't fix it. It wont really matter in the end.

That't not to say I don't think we should fight pollution and things directly harming the world, I'm also suppose to be a steward of the earth, I'm in charge of keeping it healthy and well, and will take action to keep it healthy.

Good job on entirely, ENTIRELY missing the point I was making. Nice work on the false dichotomy as well._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I know a stay at home mom with 3 children ...I've cleaned for them without payment
I have cleaned them all without complaint, but this time I have refused to come clean unless she disciplines her children into keeping things clean.
_________________

It's not too far removed from the little story I posted. I don't know why you would call that little story bullshit. I know real life examples of that story, hence that is why I posted it.

I know that feeling. I was forced to stay at my aunt's house due to financial issues . They were very abusive parents to their kids and I wanted to feel sorry for them but they didn't take their parents seriously. I was the only one that ever did any cleaning there. The kids thought it was some sort of joke. They begged me to stop cleaning because it made them look bad. I wasn't cleaning for their sake, I just wanted to breathe clean air. After catching a really bad flu, I decided to go back home to my mom and I gave her my pay check from a job I had up there.

It's no wonder why people call LA is a hell-hole.
Gas stoves and trashy people with no class.
You'd be safer in New York.

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it. I'm not worried cause I have Faith. If we can stop it, all well in good, if we can't? My belief in God tells me that He has the final say in when the universe ends, and he's the one in charge of the universe, he's going to create a new heaven and earth after everything's done, so even if we can't fix it. It wont really matter in the end.

That't not to say I don't think we should fight pollution and things directly harming the world, I'm also suppose to be a steward of the earth, I'm in charge of keeping it healthy and well, and will take action to keep it healthy.

Good job on entirely, ENTIRELY missing the point I was making. Nice work on the false dichotomy as well.

I didn't say ANYTHING about Global Warming, your the one who brought it up, so I didn't really miss the point, the point was thrust upon me and in my confusion I tried to end it by saying that I leave the ending up to God but will try to do the best I can while I'm here.

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it.

Do you understand why it is being called a false dichotomy? It is because you are not expressing the only two possible outcomes. You're saying that if we can do something about it we will, if we can't do something about it we won't. Yet by all appearances "could have done something about it but didn't" is a fairly probable outcome.

When it comes to critical humanitarian and scientific issues, people just throwing their hands up and saying "I don't care because it is all in God's hands" should be extricated from the discussion, because they don't want to have one. They are to scientific discussion the lumpenproletariat, essentially.

Thus, the examples really did not work because the lifestyle that you presented as showing women being capable of creating capital (food and wealth) was for the most part dead by the time of the writing of the bible and it was replaced by heavily male centered economic systems like the strength intensive farming with its assumption of organized politics and armies or the fighting intensive shepherding culture with all of its attached raiding, also male centered. Women were crucial in these societies, but as a support network, making the children to replace losses as well as supporting the large households necessary to make these systems possible. However, this is where my wording was poor, they were less "useful" in that they could not create capital.

but this isn't true. women did "create capital" in early agricultural societies (in parentheses because i'm not sure how much "capital", in the sense of money or transferable goods, existed in early societies). you can still see this in poorer (i.e., those without lots of machines) agricultural societies today. women worked at the planting and harvesting and the weeding. women may not have been out with the herds (although as i recall, the bible refers to the woman moses married, and her sisters, as shepherdesses; they met at a well where the women were watering their flock). ANYway - the women may not have been out herding, but they were often the ones doing the milking, and making butter and cheese and suchlike products. they were certainly the ones who carded and spun the wool, and wove and sewed the cloth made from it. they often had full responsibility for smaller animals, like rabbits and poultry - "egg money" was traditionally the woman's share, which she got by selling eggs. so they very definitely contributed to the family's income. as to why widows had to have a man to take care of her - i think that probably had more to do with property rights; i.e., whether a woman could own property in her own name. if only a man can own or hold rights to land, you really can't farm without one. and certainly in a world where people were pretty much at the mercy of things like droughts and floods and loss of stock to raiders or wolves or disease, a family is more secure if it has more earning power (so both male and female breadwinners). it is true that women were generally excluded from the military and voluntary raiding, and frequently from the political process. so they weren't bringing home loot, and they didn't have much say in things. but they certainly generated wealth.

i don't know that there is much in the way of "strength intensive farming" - farming has pretty much always used as many members of the family as possible (which is why they like big families - even the kids are out there working as soon as they are big enough). strength seems to come in more in actual jobs (for which one would be paid money) - masonry, carpentry, hauling stuff, like that. those did tend to be male-dominated._________________aka: neverscared!

1- we have barely reached the temperatures set during the medieval warm period, a 150 year period in the 1100's when the planet really heated up and places like greenland were a lot hotter than they are now. 2- 12,000 years ago we were leaving and ice age, its foolish to think that without the precious human race tempratures would not be changing.

i would leave wheels to explain the fallacies about the medieval warm period, except that he has more sense than to be in this forum (spoiler alert: it wasn't global! nor was it warmer than now). but as to the effects of the puny human race - in the last few thousand years, humans have burned a whole lot of stuff that would otherwise not have burned - whole forests, peat, coal, and in the last 100 yrs or so, lots and lots of petroleum. except for the forests, this represents carbon that was sequestered for thousands to millions of years. do you really think releasing carbon that was accumulated over millions of years in just 100 years would not have any sort of impact? CO2 very definitely impacts climate - what's-his-face, who has been arguing against the existence of climate change, has now presented evidence that a) the temperature record shows a distinct increase over time and b) that change correlates strongly with observed rising CO2 levels (it was in the national news like 2 weeks ago). in addition, we have been creating, and releasing, a lot of chemicals that don't occur naturally, things that we know can have effects on a planet-wide scale (remember freon and the hole in the ozone? yes, it's better now - because we banned the stuff that caused it. so much for the impact humans have!)

i agree that it is unfortunate that arguments over global warming have been used to discredit the environmental movement, but i would put the blame on those who most benefit by both discrediting the notion that CO2 impacts the climate and stopping any effort to resist damage to the environment. it's not too hard to follow the evidence and see who this is (their initials are The Oil Industry). make a few calculations on how much money they have to fight this stuff, and you will see why there are certain politicians and news networks who are still working hard to make it seem like this isn't something solidly grounded in science._________________aka: neverscared!

I'm not going to get into an argument about global warming, mostly because if it IS happening, we will do two things, stop it or cannot stop it. I'm not worried cause I have Faith. If we can stop it, all well in good, if we can't? My belief in God tells me that He has the final say in when the universe ends, and he's the one in charge of the universe, he's going to create a new heaven and earth after everything's done, so even if we can't fix it. It wont really matter in the end.

That't not to say I don't think we should fight pollution and things directly harming the world, I'm also suppose to be a steward of the earth, I'm in charge of keeping it healthy and well, and will take action to keep it healthy.

Good job on entirely, ENTIRELY missing the point I was making. Nice work on the false dichotomy as well.

I didn't say ANYTHING about Global Warming, your the one who brought it up, so I didn't really miss the point, the point was thrust upon me and in my confusion I tried to end it by saying that I leave the ending up to God but will try to do the best I can while I'm here.

Ok, I'll explain this since you've admitted to being confused.

This is my original response to you

Darqcyde wrote:

Rothide wrote:

So when the Sisterhood wins, when can I expect things to go completely all to hell like in Bioshock?

When the world goes to hell, it's most likely due to male egos. Then again, this accounts for most of history's major problems.

Currently, this is manifesting (at least here in the US) as people taking ludicrous viewpoints (what climate change?) and refusing to change them even in the face of overwhelming evidence, which in turn leads to inaction or the prevention of action by those who would take it.

Like how the price of food is going to go up A LOT this winter, and most likely not go back down.

I'm only citing one example of how male egos are fucking us right now.The example is the US lack of response to climate change. arguing what or who is causing is right now irrelevant because of the immediacy of problems now occurring. That doesn't mean we shouldn't answer those questions, it's just that we shouldn't waste time arguing about the cause when a response is needed NOW. People have been aware of climate change for years, and who knows, maybe Obama wouldn't need to be giving out millions in drought relief right now if we had taken greater preventative measures sooner.

But we didn't. Because of political cock-blocking (that there is s'pose to be funny if ya think about it ) the system did nothing, or damn near effectively so.

Also, please read the articles in the links I posted, and especially read some of the links in the huffington post.

BTW, those links are here:

Darqcyde wrote:

Rothide wrote:

... How did you get global... Nevermind...

I know I'm new, but I've read the comic for about 2 years now, and must say that Glossy and her Sisterhood just gets on my nerves...

I agree that women need more equality, that they need to stand up for themselves and need to be payed equally, and a few more aspects that were brought up I believe in.

I just find the way they are doing things are either hamfisted, or just innefective.

What do you mean? It's simple. One political side in the US said that climate change was going on. The other, therefore, HAD to take an opposing view point. In the face of what could happen, worst case scenario and what not, there should have been immediate and significant response on the part of the US Government when climate change was first recognized. Instead, the issue has gotten buried in a sea of petty bickering and squabbling (thank you Fox news and your misinformation dissemination system) and the major issue is instead the economy, which frankly is WAY more affected by corporations and wealthy individuals than it is by any sort of attempted Government control, namely because it gets bogged down in the legislative process of the bureaucracy and therefore Government controls are slow to take effect. In contrast, a single CEO could make decisions on much shorter time tables (like building a new factory that will employ 20,000 people or shutting one down) and therefore have a greater immediate effect, whether good or bad.

But like I said, male egos are preventing effective decisions from being made so we can all just sit and watch as we're paying $5 for a gallon of milk come next year. But I could be wrong, and that would be great.

BTW, this is even taking into account special interest and outright bribes.

_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Last edited by Darqcyde on Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:07 am; edited 1 time in total